You really think most users care about OS upgrades? They don't. When I rolled out Exchange at my company, over 50% of iPhone users were still running 3.x, even though 5.x had been available for a couple months.

Of course, I do hope MS (or AT&T more likely) commits to supporting older phones, but I don't think it's a deal break either way. Android users have been putting up with the problem for years and Android sales remain strong.

With most platforms (PC/Symbian/other) prior to the iPhone, you purchased your device (PC/phone) and it came with an OS which provided a set of features. Sometimes people paid for an upgrade (say Win95 to WinXP) and received a bunch of new functionality, but more often than not, what you lived with was what you started with until you upgraded to the next generation device.

Bullshit. Windows XP changed substantially over its lifetime - the service packs added significant functionality and other improvements.

Plus I don't think anybody is expecting paradigm changes to be supported. Personally I think Windows 8 and ICS are a little too much to expect - they are significantly different OSes and probably have very different requirements. I would hate for these new OS upgrades to be hobbled just to offer support for the oldest LG windows 7 phone.

That being said, there's absolutely no excuse for Samsung to continue selling phones running Android 2.2, nor is there for Nokia to launch a high profile product based on an OS soon to be superseded. The new update should be the only version available, and no significant new products should be launched just before a major OS upgrade, with no certainty that it won't be outdated months after its purchase.

You really think most users care about OS upgrades? They don't. When I rolled out Exchange at my company, over 50% of iPhone users were still running 3.x, even though 5.x had been available for a couple months.

Its like Apple raised the bar too high for anybody else to even bother trying to get up to it, let alone over it.

If Microsoft can't get the same treatment from carriers that Apple got, then it's time to leave the market altogether.

Android sort of gets a pass on this because the many manufacturers aren't negotiating with the carriers as a single entity and Google seem not to care. This is one of the reasons Android fails so badly with OS upgrades.

Microsoft can do better, but either can't be bothered or have incompetents doing their negotiations. Neither are good for users.

Windows Phone users should be saying "If Apple can do it, why can't Microsoft?" There's no good reason.

You really think most users care about OS upgrades? They don't. When I rolled out Exchange at my company, over 50% of iPhone users were still running 3.x, even though 5.x had been available for a couple months.

Meanwhile, in the real world they do, in fact, upgrade in their droves. About 20% are sticking with iOS 4, but virtually none are using iOS 3.

I don't see the confusion. An employee said something. The company said "no official answer was given", whcih simply means that not every one of the hundred thousand employees is an "official voice" for the company. That makes total sense. No one would expect every employee in the company being absolutely informed about every development on every tech the company is involved with. And the company didn't say the employee was wrong, or that the employee was right. They decided not to say anything about that because they don't want to make a statement at this point (which might be due to them not having the definitive answer right now, or it may be part of a strategy). So I don't see where the article's author see the contradition.

But, I really do think that the media needs to put more pressure on the carriers and not just the OEM and software manufacturers about this issue. Apple is the only company that seems to get it right. How ironic would it be for Nokia who is pushing the Beta testers ads if in turn their new phones are indeed beta and will not upgrade to WP8. I currently have a Titan contract free and have no problem dropping Microsoft and AT&T over this issue. And yes there are more than just geeks and techies who care about upgrades.

You really think most users care about OS upgrades? They don't. When I rolled out Exchange at my company, over 50% of iPhone users were still running 3.x, even though 5.x had been available for a couple months.

Meanwhile, in the real world they do, in fact, upgrade in their droves. About 20% are sticking with iOS 4, but virtually none are using iOS 3.

I guess I have less tech-saavy users than the average (to be fair, I exaggerated a little, about half were 4.x or less). The real question is, do people care? Is your average user choosing a smartphone based on the ability to get software upgrades? I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

This to me sounds like they're wishy washy about whether they even want to stay in the smartphone market at all, which is understandable considering WP7's complete lack of marketshare. I think the reason we've heard almost nothing about WP8 is because there may not be a WP8. Google moves more Android phones in a week than Windows Phone has sold in its entire run.

I think I am starting to believe the point of view of some posters here that say that Peter and other writers on Ars are anti Windows phone.

I'm nothing of the sort. I think upgradability is a key feature for smartphones, and Microsoft promised to be so much better than Android. I like Windows Phone a lot, and want it to succeed. Even optimistically, it has an extremely tough road ahead. For Microsoft to make this even harder by refusing to discuss the future just makes it even harder.

For Microsoft to succeed with Windows phone , they have to be at least as good as their main opposition.

Android updaes == laughably bad. comical. A joke, and a bad one at that. This is the low bar and snakes slither over it.

iOS == Best part of perfect. All current devices get the updates regardless of carrier and they get it quickly. Older devices are typically support for 2 generations (From memory).

Microsoft are starting from a long way back, and they have to be at least equal to iOS in this. But they aren't.

I'm looking for a new smart phone in about 4 months time. I don't really want an iPhone, but androids updating makes it a non starter for me currenty, and microsoft are just waffling. I'm not going to get stuck with another phone that gets no OS updates.

Root your phone and updates aren't that big of a deal with Android. I have an ancient Galaxy S/Captivate and it runs ICS really well.

If you're a putz with technology, then yes, I guess updating an Android would be a bit of a problem. If you're even remotely computer literate, it's not that big of a deal. Just root and run cyanogenmod.

If anything, Android phones are supported by Cyanogenmod and other AOSP ROMs long after iPhones from the same time period have been dropped for updates.

There's a reason Android has more marketshare than all of its competitors combined, and it's not because it sucks or it's hard to update.

Is your average user choosing a smartphone based on the ability to get software upgrades? I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

I think it covers a spectrum. Tech geeks almost always want the latest and greatest, so upgrades certainly matter for them. At the opposite end are those who may have received the phone as a gift and are indifferent and use it out-of-the-box until the battery no longer works. Also, someone may want a very specific feature (say, a decent camera) and when that is satisfied the rest is background noise.

In the middle are those who kinda care about upgrades, but that may be low on their priorities. What I think many pundits and commenters don't account for are those who don't know or care about OS upgrades, but instead want the latest apps or individual features that might get held back because of a non-upgradable OS. Polls and surveys may not capture their intentions correctly, but ultimately they will care about OS upgrades if they enable something else.

the nonsense won't end until a phone is an open piece of hardware, on which you can install your own stuff, then subscribe to network access like you would at home with dialup or cable or whatever. but will that ever happen ?

The way this is going, Microsoft has all of the disadvantages of Android (fragmentation with different versions out) and few advantages (perhaps only the development tools, but even then - why develop for a platform that doesn't sell very well?).

No, this IS a Microsoft issue, because Microsoft designed the platform this way and gave the power to the carriers. You can lay the blame on others all you want, but iOS users don't suffer these problems -- and they're using the same carriers who are delaying the Windows Phone releases. The platform was designed by Microsoft and is owned by Microsoft. It is THEIR responsibility to design it in a way that's good for customers, especially after Apple proved it could be done (insofar as updates are concerned).

Because we haven't made hardware subsidies illegal, and forced the carriers out of the hardware biz, MS has no choice but to play their game. Only Apple had enough mindshare to force the carriers to do their bidding (and that gravy train wont last forever, the carriers would love to regain that control).

If you don't do as the carrier says, they don't carry your phone. And since everyone wants a subsidized phone, those are the vast majority of phones sold.

MS is also at the mercy of hardware vendors. Samsung can't make 50 phones of the same type in a row, without changing some internal part.

it's disgraceful that MS refuses to advise today's Windows phone buyers whether or not their new phones will be upgraded to W8 later this year. certainly by now MS/Nokia know the answer. whatever happened to being "up front" - that is, earning consumers' trust? if the answer is "no," what a cynical rip off, selling "new" Lumia's today that will be obsolete in only six months.

but then, it did the same thing with WM 6.5 phones, didn't it? ultimately, they never got W7 Metro.

don't Windows users ever get tired of being played for fools? actually, maybe yes they do. no wonder Windows smatphones market share has collapsed to just a few %.

the nonsense won't end until a phone is an open piece of hardware, on which you can install your own stuff, then subscribe to network access like you would at home with dialup or cable or whatever. but will that ever happen ?

So, when Microsoft said Windows Phone 7 phones would get an upgrade to the next major version?

Well, they lied. And you believed them, suckers.

I do wonder if Microsoft have just signed Windows Phone's death warrant. All Microsoft have at this stage is a few brave early adopters, and to reward them for their faith, Redmond has decided to piss in their faces and then run away laughing.

Anyone fearing the for future upgrades with Android can just buy Nexus or SGS2 and be pretty sure it is going to be upgraded to at least 4.0. You can't be sure what you are getting with WP.

I have an older HTC at home which never went from 6.5 to WP7 because MS just abandoned it. I have a few Android devices that all were updated to the edge of their abilities and some are on the way to getting 4.0 (Flyer and Xperia X10(Cyanogen)). Even without the updates I would still be happy.

I would say that some people who seem to bash WP7 actually do like, or even love, it. Its the failure to deliver on potential that's so frustrating. Geez, I remember when Paul Thurott went on a tear about WP7 screwing up... He was very, passionately, frustrated with the situation (was it NoDo? Can't recall).

Given the promise of WP7 (I love it!), I'm afraid the lack of success its seen will give carriers and OEMs more leverage against MS to screw the damn platform up. Certainly, I could see them insisting that uninstalling pre-loaded apps not be nearly as easy.

You take a gamble whenever you buy a smartphone. How many phones have ICS? How many Androids were abandoned with Eclair and Froyo? Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

Android has a lot of great features, but OS updating is an area I think we could charitably call an unmitigated failure. Comparing to Android on this does Windows Phone no favours.

How does it compare to the market leader, the iPhone? How hard are iPhones to upgrade? There's no gamble on this aspect of iOS.

I think I am starting to believe the point of view of some posters here that say that Peter and other writers on Ars are anti Windows phone.

Only if you believe that anyone who isn't a slavering fanboy falling over himself to heap unreserved praise on a particular platform is 'anti'. The internet doesn't need to be that infantile. There's room for people to praise the strengths of a platform while also pointing out the weaknesses and putting pressure on providers to correct them.

Upgrades are an area which Apple got spectacularly right with iOS, and has done so for many years now. WP (and Android) need to be able to provide the same capability - perhaps not for free, since the inflated upfront cost of the iPhone bundles SW upgrades into its initial price - but it needs to be there.

Android might be leading in market share, but I wouldn't call it a "leader." Android's first priority are the OEMs and carriers, catering to their whims and wishes. iOS caters to Apple and their sensibilities, and forces those upon carriers. This benefits consumers.

iOS isn't my cup of tea, but looking at it? Apple is leading with it in terms of how things can be done and done well. Microsoft tried following that example, but didn't push as hard as they could have. If anything, WP7 is a middle-ground between iOS and Android. It could ultimately end up with the worst of both although it's trying to mix the best of both - rather difficult considering there are aspects that negate each other, making MS a bit wishy-washy... Being carrier friendly almost means being consumer apathetic/hostile and vise-versa (or so it seems to me).

One thing is clear; there's something amiss/awry in the upgrade path for WP. If there was an upgrade planned for every phone they already sold with WP7, they would have been shouting it from the rooftops and it would be plastered over each and every website, as Windows Phone isn't exactly taking the world by storm. That evangelist might just have based himself of rumors he'd wish were true.

Now why could that be?

Worst case (but most likely explanation IMHO) is that the insides of WinRT are so different from the old and rusty WinCE that a port is impossible. A less terrible (but still very bad) situation would be that some WP7/WP7.5 users get some sort of upgrade. Those who are left in the cold will not be happy and would probably have opted for one that could have been upgraded, had they known this beforehand. E.g. perhaps the 'limited to 256 MB' phones get left in the cold, or other hardware demands could be used to decide whether or not a phone will get to upgrade.

Another thought is that Microsoft doesn't see it as an upgrade, but as a new product one has to buy. But given their struggles, such a statement would probably lead to even more dismissal of the already hurting platform.

In all, Microsoft not being clear about it is once more chipping away at the little credibility WP has left. Confusing or misleading their userbase is the very last thing they should do. They claimed to be so much better than Android, but most of what I see doesn't underline that, and makes Ballmer look like a used car salesman, who just told you what you wanted to hear to sell you a phone.

Android might be leading in market share, but I wouldn't call it a "leader." Android's first priority are the OEMs and carriers, catering to their whims and wishes. iOS caters to Apple and their sensibilities, and forces those upon carriers. This benefits consumers.

I'd disagree that Android caters to the whims of "OEMs and carriers". Android is Android. Google push out a release, and the OEMs grab the source code and decide what to do with it. There is a reason why Google have their "flagship" Nexus devices which run "pure" Android. There are also lots of good (for OEM) reasons why they like to skin the interface a little.

Carrier-added apps that can't easily be removed is annoying, but this has always been part of how a carrier likes to differentiate themselves in mobile to "add value" (not necessarily to the consumer ).

Easy to just follow the Nexus route if you want to avoid all that nonsense though (speaking from a UK perspective, and I always purchase rather than contract my mobile devices). Having said that, I've been using a Galaxy Note since release and don't fret too much about future upgrades. My Nexus One is stuck on Gingerbread though, and I'm pretty sure that's not going to get an official release to ICS, but we had a good run .

Quote:

iOS isn't my cup of tea, but looking at it? Apple is leading with it in terms of how things can be done and done well. Microsoft tried following that example, but didn't push as hard as they could have. If anything, WP7 is a middle-ground between iOS and Android. It could ultimately end up with the worst of both although it's trying to mix the best of both - rather difficult considering there are aspects that negate each other, making MS a bit wishy-washy... Being carrier friendly almost means being consumer apathetic/hostile and vise-versa (or so it seems to me).

Yes, Apple do it right. They have the muscle and produce enough profit and cachet for the carriers to allow it.

Microsoft seem to be stuck in the middle a bit. They don't follow the free for all of the Android approach, but also don't have the 100% control needed to force OEMs/Carriers into line. To me they just seem to be operating along the usual manufacturer/carrier relationship that's always been the trademark of mobile. I don't see this changing much for them in the long run.

You take a gamble whenever you buy a smartphone. How many phones have ICS? How many Androids were abandoned with Eclair and Froyo? Making a purchasing decision based on what *might* happen is a mistake I've made before, so nowadays I go on what I *know* i.e. What the device is capable of at the time I make the purchase.

Your "gamble" is when you buy an Android phone. iPhones are upgradable for 3 versions back. No gamble.

Your "gamble" is when you buy an Android phone. iPhones are upgradable for 3 versions back. No gamble.

As an ex-3G user who upgraded to iOS4 and watched their phone become painfully slow to the point of unusable, I'd say there was still a small amount of "gamble" there. Not as much as the other platforms mind you.

For most other users of platforms, it's easier to just assume that the OS you get when you buy the phone is the OS you get when you move on. Anything you do get in-between should be, sadly, treated as a nice surprise.

This article underscores the reality that Microsoft has no coherent vision of where it is going. It let a group of summer interns define its direction for Windows 8. It has a bunch of wannabes trying to run the show. Having lived through this kind of environment for several years in another large computer company, it seems quite familiar. Microsoft cannot commit to anything for the future because nobody really understands where they are currently or what they are going to be able to achieve. Of course, there are many managers and evangelists who think they know the path to the future and who are pursuing some form of private agenda to promote their vision. But, in my experience all this kind of effort produced was failure. Maybe Microsoft will be luckier. But, I would not count on it.

I wonder what's worse, having a perfectly usable phone that lacks some of the latest features or a phone that is almost unusable because it cannot run the latest version properly (iPhone 3G running iOS 4).

This sounds like a pretty massive upgrade, and it could perfectly well be that Microsoft is seeing performance degrade on current phones with WP8 installed, and for this reason still not sure if they can make it work fast / fluent enough for current generation phones to receive the update.

The question then, maybe, is not if Microsoft is at fault here, but whether the phone manufacturers should have made the hardware for their phones WP8 proof.

I wonder what's worse, having a perfectly usable phone that lacks some of the latest features or a phone that is almost unusable because it cannot run the latest version properly (iPhone 3G running iOS 4).

I managed to use an unofficial method to roll back to the last version of iOS 3 so I'd say that the latter is worse.

In addition, since iOS 4 technically went to all phones, many of the developers updated their apps to be iOS 4 only and depreciated their older apps. After a while I was left with a bunch of apps that didn't work any more on iOS 3 and I couldn't update them because I didn't want to go back to iOS 4.

This whole update mess pushed me to pick up an N9. I wanted a Lumia 800 or 900 for a long time. I knew the shortcomings of WP7 but I was able to live with them partly because I felt that they would be remedied shortly. At the same time I steered clear of the N9 due to it being "a dead end".

After the other story by Peter suggesting not to buy the 900, followed by numerous people saying things like "why would you buy a phone based on features it doesn't have yet" I began to give the N9 a second look. At the OS level, Harmatten seems to do all the things I'm waiting for Windows Phone to do. It has a proper notification system, proper multitasking, and more robust backgrounding of apps (one of my big annoyances on WP7 is the fact that I can't even lock the screen while Nokia Drive is running). Why wait for the supposed tight Skype integration when the N9 has that now?

You really think most users care about OS upgrades? They don't. When I rolled out Exchange at my company, over 50% of iPhone users were still running 3.x, even though 5.x had been available for a couple months.

Meanwhile, in the real world they do, in fact, upgrade in their droves. About 20% are sticking with iOS 4, but virtually none are using iOS 3.

I think managing some corporate IT infrastructure from which I can draw various anecdotal stats has officially superseded lawyer as the internet profession of choice.

I wonder what's worse, having a perfectly usable phone that lacks some of the latest features or a phone that is almost unusable because it cannot run the latest version properly (iPhone 3G running iOS 4).

I managed to use an unofficial method to roll back to the last version of iOS 3 so I'd say that the latter is worse.

In addition, since iOS 4 technically went to all phones, many of the developers updated their apps to be iOS 4 only and depreciated their older apps. After a while I was left with a bunch of apps that didn't work any more on iOS 3 and I couldn't update them because I didn't want to go back to iOS 4.

This & turning off most of the spotlight indexing ( because of lots of sms messages & lots of notes ) made the 3G under iOS 4 run like new:

Settings -> General -> Reset -> Reset Location Warnings

Edit: I also want to stress how the 3G had 128MB of ram, was released in 2008, and still works today.

I don't see the confusion. An employee said something. The company said "no official answer was given", whcih simply means that not every one of the hundred thousand employees is an "official voice" for the company. That makes total sense. No one would expect every employee in the company being absolutely informed about every development on every tech the company is involved with. And the company didn't say the employee was wrong, or that the employee was right. They decided not to say anything about that because they don't want to make a statement at this point (which might be due to them not having the definitive answer right now, or it may be part of a strategy). So I don't see where the article's author see the contradition.

The guy's a DE. he might not be an "official voice" to the press and the public at large, but he gives advice and presentations to developers as an official liaison from MS, so in that community if he says, "What Microsoft said/stated and what I’m allowed to tell you is that all actual devices will get upgrade to the next major version of Windows Phone (we´re talking about Apollo)," that's, as the kids say, "what's up." He's not a secretary to a custodian.

Android might be leading in market share, but I wouldn't call it a "leader." Android's first priority are the OEMs and carriers, catering to their whims and wishes. iOS caters to Apple and their sensibilities, and forces those upon carriers. This benefits consumers.

I'd disagree that Android caters to the whims of "OEMs and carriers". Android is Android. Google push out a release, and the OEMs grab the source code and decide what to do with it. There is a reason why Google have their "flagship" Nexus devices which run "pure" Android. There are also lots of good (for OEM) reasons why they like to skin the interface a little.

Carrier-added apps that can't easily be removed is annoying, but this has always been part of how a carrier likes to differentiate themselves in mobile to "add value" (not necessarily to the consumer ).

Easy to just follow the Nexus route if you want to avoid all that nonsense though (speaking from a UK perspective, and I always purchase rather than contract my mobile devices). Having said that, I've been using a Galaxy Note since release and don't fret too much about future upgrades. My Nexus One is stuck on Gingerbread though, and I'm pretty sure that's not going to get an official release to ICS, but we had a good run .

The argument could even be made that with the Nexus line Google caters less than anyone else. As far as I can tell, the Galaxy Nexus is the only phone in Canada that cannot be bought in a locked state. That is to say that even phones bought on contract from your carrier come out of the box completely unlocked. I don't know of any other big ticket Smartphone that can make this claim.